ATTN: RICK TOMA and VALERY FROSTY: Please cross post where possible.
       Today a NOTICE OF APPEAL AND DESIGNATION OF RECORD was filed in 
Arkansas appealing a Circuit Court Judge's decision granting quasi-judicial 
immunity to a court appointed psychologist as a matter of judicial policy.
Statements made by the Judge provide a basis for direct appeal to the 
Arkansas Supreme Court:
       "The Court appreciates the research efforts put forth by the parties 
and recognizes that the law in Arkansas is not clear on the issue of 
quasi-judicial immunity for court-appointed psychologists."
       Basis for appeal was significant public interest and legal principals 
of major importance.  Citation of the exact wording of the issues to be 
brought before the Supreme Court follows:
       The issues of signifigant public interest and legal principals of 
major importance are:
       1. Are psychologists appointed by the courts to be expert witnesses 
required to comply with judicial policy requiring that espert testimony be 
based upon science and the use of valid, reliable scientific methods, 
procedures and protocols?
       2. Are psychologists appointed by the courts to be expert witnesses 
entitled to quasi-judicial, or any type of immunity, if their expert 
testimony is not based upon science and they do not use valid, reliable 
scientific methods, procedures and protocols?
       3. Since the Arkansas Sup[reme Court has stated that it has no 
criticism of the United States Supreme Court decision in Daubert V. Merrell 
Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (citation), does it also accept those standards as 
applicable to the Arkansas rules of evidence.
       4. Does the Arkansas Supreme Court accept the standards of 
testability, falsefiability and refutability, developed by Sir Karl Popper, 
as standards for distinguishing science from pseudoscience?
       5. If the Arkansas Supreme Court accepts the standards of testability, 
falsifiability and refutability, developed by Sir Karl Popper, as standards 
for distinguishing science from pseudoscience, does the Court also accept his 
conclusion that psychology is a pseudoscience that does not meet these 
standards.
       6. Does the Court appointment of psychologists to be expert witnesses 
exempt them from complying with judicial policy and requirements that expert 
testimony must be based upon valid reliable science and use of valid and 
reliable scientific methods, procedures, and protocols?
       7> What standards must psychologists meet to be appointed by the 
courts to perform as expert witnesses?
       It is fortunate that the Circuit Court Judge used the specific wording 
he did.  No one can know what the outcome of this will be, but it is moving 
forward.  It has been a long hard fight to get here and it is not over yet. 
Perhaps this strategy will be aplicable elsewhere.  Good luck everybody! 
--- GEcho 1.11+
---------------